Port Tobacco times, and Charles County advertiser. (Port Tobacco, Md.) 1845-1898, 1887-01-14
DortQ obQccoGimes
PORT TOBACCO:
Friday Mornin9....".."Januarg IA, 1887.
Compensation for slaves.


Compensation for slaves.
Hon. B. G. Harris, of st. Mary's, is out
in a three column letter in the last issue
of the Beacon upon the question of COM
pensation by the general government fot
slave property Of which loyal citizens OF
Maryland were deprived. Mr.. Harris goes
over much of the ground covered by the
TIMES in its discussion OF the question q
year ago and arrives at the same conclu-
sion-that the general government is NOR
ally and almost legally pledged to COM
pensate the loyal owners of slave property
in Maryland for the loss of their property
during the civil war.
Mr.. Harris does not 60 into the ques-
ton of the revolutionary character of the
so-called State constitution of 1864, where
by slavery in Maryland was declared to
be thenceforth abolished without compen-
sation. He thinks it unnecessary to dis
cuss this point; as, according to his view,
all the slaves had already been removed
from Maryland by the federal forces. md
at the time of the alleged adoption of that
instrument, he says, "a slave anywhere in
Maryland, except in the camps OF the
Government, was a curiosity"
Mr.. Harris probably states the case rath
er too strongly in that respect, though it
is safe to say that by far the greater por-
ton of the male slaves had been either en-
listed or impressed into the Federal SER
vice, or carried away from the State by
the armies as servants and camp followers
prior to the fall of 1854, when the alleged
constitution was put in operation. 1t is
well in discussing this question to pre-
serve the distinction between such slaves
As were taken into the Federal service or
carried away by the armies and such as
remained in the State at the time the al
legged constitution took effect and received
their liberty by virtue thereof The claim
against the government in respect to the
former class is clearer, in that the compli-
cation arising out Of the revolutionary
proceeding of 1854 will not enter into it
at all.
There can be no doubt that the loyal
slave owners of Maryland had and have
a clear claim for compensation against the
Federal government for such of their pro-
perty as was impressed into the service of
the Government, providing it has not been
AIRED by the 14th amendment to the con-
stitution. And it would seem difficult to
discriminate between such as were sctual-
~ enlisted into the public service and
such as were taken away by the Federal
officers and soldiers a. private servants
and otherwise followed the armies away,
their loss being directly and Immediately
consequent upon the passage of the Fede-
raj military through the State. The pol
icy of this Government in its negotiations
and treaties with the British government
at the close of the revolutionary war and
the war of 1919 would seem to obli'erate
YES has heretofoce, in its
his question, cohtended,
and l. Iaintained, the alleged con-
stitution Of 1854, when the circumstances
of its adoption are reviewed, cannot IN
justice be considered as any bar to the
claim of loyal citizens of Maryland against
the Federal government for the loss OF
their slave property resulting Immediately
from its operation. This principle is une-
ouivocally affirmed by the present constl-
tuition of the State in article "a Of the Dec
laration of Rights.
Perhaps when the general government
comes to consideration of this question,
as we believe it will some day, it will not
be deemed just to draw any distinction ~
to the particular manner in which loyal
slave owners OF Maryland were deprived
of their property; whether by enlistment
in the public service, enticement away as
private servants and camp followers by the
armies, or by the revolutionary proceeding
of 1864. All loyal citizens of this loyal
State. who were possessed of slave proper
ty at the commencement of the civil wal
and lost it in consequence thereof, VIII
probably receive compensation without
regard to the above mentioned distinc
lions. But lest some such distinction may
be adopted to the prejudice and confusion
of such claims, it is desirable that SOM
proper measures should be adopted by tn
State Legislature for the perpetuation o
the testimony upon which this claim !
based, whereby q complete record OF tn
slave property lost in this State, the tim
and manner of each particular loss and tn
name aud other circumstances OF the OWL
er should be made and preserved.
In his discussion of the 14th amendmer
as it bears upon this question, Mr.. Harri
AZ it seems to us, rests his case, unnece
sarily, upon very nice distinction whic
savors too much of scholartic subtlety.
ia difficult to see how we could serious
demand compensation for property witt
out, as q necessary prerequisite OF OF
claim, admitting that there had been
loss of it. There is broader ground upt
which the non-application of the IA
amendment to the claim of the loyal cit
Gems of this loyal State can be based al
that is the one taken by the TIMES in
past discussions of this question.
The language of the clause Of the IA
amendment bearing upon this questi
shows very clearly that the rebellious Sta
azons were in the contemplation of t
trainers and adopters of the organic Il
in the application of this prohibition
The fact that the prohibition OF comPe
sation for the loss of slave property is